Silva v. Worth et al

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/2/2016. Show Cause Response due (30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANTHONY SILVA,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

WORTH, et al.,

13

1:16-cv-01131-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
(Doc. 6)

Defendants.

30-DAY DEADLINE

14
15

Plaintiff, Anthony Silva, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

16

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in

17

forma pauperis which was not on the correct form. (Doc. 2.) On September 2, 2016, an order

18

issued providing Plaintiff with the correct form and directing him to complete and submit the

19

correct form within forty-five (45) days. (Doc. 6.) More than forty-five days have lapsed without

20

Plaintiff having filed the correct form.

21

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or

22

of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the

23

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

24

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a

25

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

26

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,

27

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to

28

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
1

1

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

2

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

3

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

4

prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of

5
6

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the

7

Court’s order and for his failure to prosecute this action. Alternatively within that same time,

8

Plaintiff may either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the correct form, or pay

9

the $400.00 filing fee for this action.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 2, 2016

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.